On 7/9/2017 12:13 PM, Marcus wrote:
> Am 09.07.2017 um 14:53 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
>> [...]
>>
>> Anyway I am proceeding with (uncommitted) development under the
>> assumption
>> at least 7 is ok, and will revisit with 8 if possible. Please object soon
>> if you do :-)
>
> of course the curren
Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
There are many language and class library improvements in later versions of
Java that we would benefit from in AOO, and if there are no objections, I
would like to increase the minimum version to 7, if not 8.
I agree (for trunk, of course). Java 7 is probably a safer cho
Hello guys;
While updating the java requirements, please someone remove StaX API
(main/stax) from the build. I recall it was only used for Java versions < 5.
Pedro.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache
Am 09.07.2017 um 18:38 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
> Please provide a full log and build options / setup. My Windows trunk
> builds perfectly.
Hi Damjan,
I will do so when I have time for trunk.
At the moment I will concentrate on 4.1.4.
Regards, Matthias
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptogra
Am 09.07.2017 um 19:38 schrieb Pedro Lino:
> Hi Matthias
>
>
> (it could only be more perfect if the build number was included in
> the
> filename, for test builds only ;) )
>> It was just a simple rename via SFTP... ;-)
>
> Yes, I realize that for this build you simply did a renam
Hi Matthias
(it could only be more perfect if the build number was included in the
filename, for test builds only ;) )
It was just a simple rename via SFTP... ;-)
Yes, I realize that for this build you simply did a rename (the build
date didn't change).
But my request was for the build nu
Am 08.07.2017 um 20:55 schrieb Pedro Lino:
> Hi Matthias, all
>
>>> (it could only be more perfect if the build number was included in the
>>> filename, for test builds only ;) )
>> Good idea! Done... ;-)
>
> Excellent! I meant for future builds, but why not start right now?
> Thank you!
Hi Pedro,
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:15 PM, Matthias Seidel
wrote:
> Am 09.07.2017 um 18:07 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
> > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Matthias Seidel <
> matthias.sei...@hamburg.de>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Damjan,
> >>
> >> I can only comment on a non-technical POV...
> >>
> >> Am 09.07.20
Am 09.07.2017 um 18:07 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Matthias Seidel
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Damjan,
>>
>> I can only comment on a non-technical POV...
>>
>> Am 09.07.2017 um 14:53 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> Currently our Java policy [1] mandates a baseline of
Am 09.07.2017 um 14:53 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
[...]
Anyway I am proceeding with (uncommitted) development under the assumption
at least 7 is ok, and will revisit with 8 if possible. Please object soon
if you do :-)
of course the current 4.1.x release line should be kept as it is.
If possib
On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 5:44 PM, Matthias Seidel
wrote:
> Hi Damjan,
>
> I can only comment on a non-technical POV...
>
> Am 09.07.2017 um 14:53 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
> > Hi
> >
> > Currently our Java policy [1] mandates a baseline of Java 5, which was
> > released in 2004, and was EOL from 20
Hi Damjan,
I can only comment on a non-technical POV...
Am 09.07.2017 um 14:53 schrieb Damjan Jovanovic:
> Hi
>
> Currently our Java policy [1] mandates a baseline of Java 5, which was
> released in 2004, and was EOL from 2008; even paid Oracle customers stopped
> getting updates in 2015 [2].
Th
Hi
Currently our Java policy [1] mandates a baseline of Java 5, which was
released in 2004, and was EOL from 2008; even paid Oracle customers stopped
getting updates in 2015 [2].
There are many language and class library improvements in later versions of
Java that we would benefit from in AOO, an
13 matches
Mail list logo
